For shareholders in WPP to be voting 60pc against their board on any issue,
never mind pay, requires a corporate governance failure of unusual
proportions.

Worse, Philip Lader, chairman, and Jeffrey Rosen, head of the board's remuneration committee, have placed their chief executive, Sir Martin Sorrell, in an awkward position and it's really not their job to do that. It will be the name Sorrell in the headlines this morning, not Lader and Rosen who deserve to be there too.

Few, if any, chief executives I know would refuse to take a decent pay deal if on offer. I question how hard boards stand up to some chief executives in the negotiation process. But when an acceptable deal is in the offing a chief executive will grab it with both hands, especially a chief executive who has built a company from zero to £10bn in 20 years or so.The central fact is that the pay deal should not have been offered in the first place.

The failures of WPP's remuneration committee are threefold. One was not processing shareholder concerns effectively. The WPP board is, in part, blaming the role of misinformed bodies advising shareholders on how to vote. But this is a weak defence and plenty of the no votes were cast by shareholders acting on their own volition. That level of discontent was discounted by the board who should, and could, have done more to avoid the sort of day witnessed in Dublin.

Lader should also be asking questions of Merrill Lynch, which appears to be further proof that the peculiarly British invention of the corporate broker, an adviser with a supposedly cultured and experienced finger on the pulse of the market, is a waste of money.

Second, the board failed to understand that the politics of pay in the UK has changed, regardless of WPP's Dublin relocation. Whether the WPP board likes it or not, the Coalition and the House of Commons have made their views known and shareholders have taken note this year. It's a shame the WPP board hasn't.

Related Articles

Failure three was a typical over-reliance by a public company board on the advice of pay consultants. It's claimed that such companies fulfil a largely data-gathering and bench-marking function but, if that really were true, there wouldn't be so many of these firms earning such large sums. Clearly boards are paying them handsomely for advice which is considered of value. Perhaps boards should reconsider that view.

The board complains that its executives should be paid in relation to the US jobs market where much of its business is transacted. That may well be so but it has failed to make the case effectively to shareholders and should address this lack in time for next year.

There is a risk that companies such as WPP will become sufficiently frustrated with the UK market's view on pay and move primary listings to, say, New York. That would be regrettable but should not be an excuse for companies failing to justify and explain decisions to a sceptical audience.

One final observation comes from the re-election of directors. Those against Sir Martin, 1.83pc. Those against Rosen 21.8pc. Two other directors had even higher votes against.

Perhaps it's time for some fresh faces who could help the board avoid a repetition of yesterday's events.

BT's well and truly in the ball game ... at a price

BT has finally put its money where its mouth is and paid cash for live TV rights to English Premier League games. After years of using Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading to help it take on BSkyB, it's now in the fight fair and square. So, good on the Celtic-supporting Ian Livingston, BT's chief executive, who's finally admitting it is possible to compete against Sky. But will it work?

He's paying £6.5m per match versus Sky's £6.55m. But the competition has helped force Sky to spend more than last time in total (£760m versus £541m). Crucially BT will get first pick of half the weekends so it's assured a good share of big games and that should drive subscriptions to its BT Vision service. The company has proved effective in cross-selling the service to telephone and broadband customers from a standing start but having football will turn its enormous customer base into something far more valuable. Football worked for Sky and demand for the Premier League product shows no sign of abating so it's fair to assume Livingston has made a ballsy but sensible move.

Dividends and share buybacks won't be affected and a £100m hit to earnings and £200m to cash flow in the first year of 2013-14 can be swallowed given a group free cash flow forecast at £2.5bn in 2014-15.

BT won't enjoy the same returns which Sky has over the past decade now the rights are being bid up even further but it is at least now sharing in the perfectly healthy returns that remain.

Sky may well see some negative reaction this morning as the market wakes up to the fact a more effective competitor than ESPN is now in the game. But then competition for Sky is no bad thing, given the wider political environment hanging over its Murdoch connections. It should welcome a run for its money.

The Premier League has secured a big increase in its income which can only mean one thing – the ultimate winners out of this will be those hugely deserving individuals, the players themselves. Oh, and their equally attractive agents. So next time you open your BT bill just remember all that Cristal champagne and lap dancing it's funding.